User talk:McSly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Welcome...

Hello, McSly, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Fnlayson 19:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mirage 2000

So what's your point with M2000 removal? In that flight almost all the characteristics of M.2000-5 were showed, so it's not simply an 'anectodal' history, it's an overwiev of M.2000-5. Not the same stuff. And BTW there is no reason to remove it even if it was 'anecdotal'.

Moreover, you removed also another two not properly anectodal parts: the fact that M.2000 has not the seat sloped enough to help to soustain G-acceleration like happens to F-16, the fact that M.2000 had a cronologic advantage over F-16 (the main market oppositor) with SARH missiles, and finally the fact that M.2000 export had Exocet capability just like M.5/F.1 had previously.

So i don't see any improvement with your 'anecdotal' remotions, also because you have also removed tecnical characteristics that should be marked. Greetings. --Stefanomencarelli 09:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Stefano,
The reason I removed the bit about the seat was because there was no source and no actual information provided on the inclination of the seats. I'd like to add that it would be surprising that Dassault would design an airplane capable of sustaining 9g in combat but then not anticipate the effects on the pilots.
I guess we can reinsert the part about the exocet missile. The reason I removed it was because the AM39 is the standard anti-ship missile of the French army, it seemed obvious to me that any French attack aircraft would you it so there was no need to go into too much details.
And finally I moved the description of the flight to the talk page specifically because it contains some interesting information that we can use in the article. My problem with the paragraph was really about the formatting not the actual information. I'm planning to re-insert some of it in the article. --McSly 19:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aero Gazette

Why do you consider Aero Gazette, a spam link in aircraft and aviation page? Aero Gazette, gazette.aero is a fast growing news service about aircraft and aviation (free of charge) with more than 5.000 unique visitors per month, edited by pilots for pilots and finally the domain .aero is reserved to aviation entities. Please undo your deletion or add a news section with Aero Gazette.

Hello Aeronews, I apologize for my spam remark, sometimes I'm getting a little heavy handed. That being said, I went on the gazette.aero website, I selected Search www.aerogazette.com of course the other option is just Google, and did a few searches. Here are the results:
  • Airplane - 9 results, all of them are press releases wildly available on the net.
  • A380 - 8 results, all of them are press releases wildly available on the net.
  • Dassault Rafale - no result.

So I'm sorry to be blunt, but that site is completely useless to find any information. Furthermore, you can look at the wikipedia policy on external links and specifically on links that should be avoided. You'll see that the items 10, 11 and 12 are relevant to your site.

I removed the link from the Aircraft article and will continue to do so as the site linked doesn't provide any relevant information for the article.--McSly (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That's because Aero Gazette is mainly a general aviation website. If you search 'cessna' you obtain 129 results, 'aircraft' 364 results However you say Aero Gazette is spam and that is not true, you consider Aero Gazette useless and this is very questionable.

Moreover, Aero Gazette is the only (try with google) aviation site with a link to Wikiversity School of Aviation, probably more important then a list of aircraft.

Hello again. I have only one argument here, just one, Wikipedia is not a directory of links. The only thing to answer is if the sites you are linking should be kept based on the external link policy. Here is a direct quote from that policy:

Wikipedia articles should include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia if they are relevant. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews).

Some external links are welcome (see "What should be linked", below), but Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified.

Based on that quote, my opinion is that your sites are not providing anything that dozen if not hundred of other aggregators and blogs are already providing and as such do not add any value to the original articles and should not be included. --McSly (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
you should delete the link to aircraft-info.net for the same reason
You are absolutely right. I just removed it from the article.--McSly (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] French Military nav boxes

Merci pour la clarification des discutions sur ma page. Cependant je trouve parfaitement injustié de supprimer une palette de navigation au seul motif qu'elle n'est pas jolie (POV). Pour les articles Aviation navale et French Army Light Aviation je trouve que c'est completement ridicule et pousser le vice du revert un peu trop loin. Toutefois je peut admettre que pour certain véhicules (NH90, Tigre...) la présence de la palette peut etre discutée mais pour d'autres vehicule (Leclerc, Rafale...) j'ai beaucoup plus de mal. Objectivement, les arguments du type la boite n'est pas jolie ou ne s'insert pas dans l'article ... sont franchement peu recevables. --Toubabmaster (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)